Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
)
DANIEL A. UMBERT, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-1336-TSC
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
“Defendants”), and Plaintiffs, Daniel A. Umbert, Erroll Alexander Eaton, Justin Lane
Bargeron, Gary James LeComte and Kevin Francisco Borquez (“Plaintiffs”), respectfully
submit this Report regarding their counsels’ meeting and confer, pursuant to Local Rule
Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants’ erroneous denial of firearm transfers and seek
to have Defendants correct Plaintiffs’ records and to have the Defendants approve the
Plaintiffs allege that their due process rights and second amendment rights are violated as
Defendants erroneously believe Plaintiffs are prohibited person and refuse to process
appeals for National Firearm Act regulated firearms. As to Plaintiff LeComte, Defendants
have unlawfully shifted the burden for LeComte to prove he is not prohibited rather than
Defendants proving he is prohibited which violates his due process rights and second
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 4
amendment rights.
The parties submit the following information regarding the 16 areas listed in
1. The parties agree that the case is likely to be resolved through dispositive
2. The parties propose a deadline of 7 days after the Initial Scheduling Conference
4. The parties do not know the prospects of settlement at this time. The case does
not involve a claim for monetary damages (other than attorney’s fees and costs).
The parties suggest a briefing schedule that runs after the close of discovery: 30 days for
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; 30 days for Defendants’ opposition and cross motion;
14 days for Plaintiffs’ reply and cross opposition; and 14 days for Defendants’ cross reply.
7. The parties do not wish to dispense with initial disclosures, but recommend a
8. The parties ask for 180 days for discovery, which they expect will consist
mostly, perhaps entirely of written discovery. The parties suggest a deadline of 45 days after
2
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 4
the initial scheduling conference for serving written discovery requests, and to use the standard
deadlines for responses thereto. A protective order does not appear necessary at this time.
14. Because the parties expect the case to be decided by dispositive motions, they
ask the Court not to set a date for the pretrial conference at this time
15. The parties ask the Court not to set a trial date at this time.
16. Two items here: (a) Counsel for Plaintiffs respectfully ask for leave to appear by
telephone at the initial scheduling conference. Defendant has no objection. (b) Counsel for
Plaintiffs ask the Court to avoid the following dates in scheduling the initial scheduling
conference: November 10-20, 24-28, 2019; and December 24, 2019, to January 10, 2020.
3
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 4 of 4